Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2396 (RAJ)

Gulam Rasool Bisayati v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-09-08

REKHA BORANA

body2022
JUDGMENT Rekha Borana, J. - The present petitions have been filed against the action of the respondent Department in denying the benefits of first, second and third selection grades/ACP to the petitioners on completion of their 9, 18 and 27 years of service w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment in their original department. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as work charge employees with the Irrigation Department. After completion of two years of service as work charge employees, they were declared 'semi-permanent'. Subsequently, the petitioners were declared surplus and were directed to be appointed/absorbed as Gram Sevak with Panchayati Raj Department. In view of the said direction of the State Government, the petitioners were appointed as Gram Sevak on ad-hoc basis with Panchayati Raj Department. The said order of appointment of the petitioners with Panchayati Raj Department specifically laid down the conditions that firstly, the appointment would be on ad-hoc basis and secondly, they would be the junior most in Panchayati Raj Department and would not claim seniority. The petitioners were then relieved from the Irrigation Department and they joined Panchayati Raj Department as 'Gram Sevak'. After completion of 9 years of service with Panchayati Raj Department they were granted the first selection grade and further the second selection grade on completion of 18 years of service. The claim of the petitioners in the present petitions is that they ought to have been granted selection grade w.e.f. completion of 9 years of service counting the same from their initial date of appointment. 3. A brief detail of the benefits granted to the petitioners till date is as under: S. No CW No. & Nam Date of appointment with the Irrigation Department Declared SemiPermanent Date of appointment with Panchayati Raj Department I st Selection Grade IInd Selection Grade IIIrd Selection Grade Present Status 1 18941/18 Gulam Rasool 01.07.81 01.07.84 3.01.90 23.01.99 2 23.01.08 - 31.12.14 retired 2 18942/18 Kailsah Chandra 01.02.85 01.01.87 24.10.89 24.10.98 24.10.07 24.10.16 In service 3 18943/18 Islam Khan 01.06.81 01.06.83 23.01.90 23.01.99 23.01.08 23.01.17 Jan 2022 Retired 4 18944/18 Sunil Kumar Tiwari 01.12.81 01.12.83 24.10.89 24.10.98 24.10.07 24.10.16 30.06.18 Retired 4. It has been submitted that in view of notification dated 25.01.1992 issued by the State Government, the employees who had been declared surplus were entitled for selection grades keeping in consideration the years of service rendered by them in their original department. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of proviso 3 to Clause 3 of the notification dated 25.01.1992, the services rendered by the petitioners prior to their absorption were liable to be counted for the purposes of grant of selection grade and the grant of selection grade w.e.f. the date they completed 9 years of service with Panchayati Raj Department is wholly illegal. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners were employed as work charge employees with the Irrigation Department and therefore, were not regular employees. Learned counsel submitted that as held in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi reported in (2009) 12 SCC 49 , for the purposes of grant of selection grade, the initial date of appointment would be the date when the petitioners had been regularized in service. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners had been absorbed with Panchayati Raj Department and that was the first time they entered in a regular cadre and therefore, would be entitled for selection grade only after completion of 9 years of service w.e.f. the date when they were absorbed/joined with Panchayati Raj Department. 6. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments in the case of Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (supra) and State of Haryana v. Sita Ram & Ors. reported in (2013) 16 SCC 677. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. For adjudication of the controversy in dispute, consideration of proviso 3 to Clause 3 of notification dated 25.01.1992 is essential. Proviso 3 reads as under: "Provided further that in the case of an employee who has been/is declared surplus and absorbed against a new post either in the same or another department excluding absorption on higher post, the service of nine, eighteen or twenty seven years, as the case may be, shall be counted for the purpose of grant of selection grade from the date of initial appointment in the Government service in accordance with the provisions contained in the relevant recruitment rules. As a result of counting of service rendered prior to absorption for grant of selection grade, if the pay of a junior Government servant happens to be more than the pay of his senior, no stepping up of pay of senior Government servant shall be permissible." 9. A bare perusal of the proviso makes it clear that in case of an employee who had been declared surplus and absorbed against some new post in another department, his services for the purposes of grant of selection grade would be counted from the date of initial appointment in the government service in accordance with the provisions contained in the relevant recruitment rules. In the present matters, the relevant recruitment rules would be those of the Irrigation Department wherein the petitioners were originally appointed. It is admitted that the petitioners were employed as work charge employees but subsequently they were declared 'semi-permanent' by the Irrigation Department. It is not in dispute that the declaration of the status of 'semi-permanent' means that the services of an employee are regularized and he is thereupon entitled to a regular pay scale. Therefore, in terms of the above mentioned proviso the date to be considered for the purpose of grant of selection grade would be the date of initial appointment in the Irrigation Department. In Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi's case (supra) it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that: "It is, therefore, enjoined upon all the authorities competent to sanction selection grade that in case where selection grades have been granted to the State Employees by counting the service rendered before regular appointment in the cadre/service in accordance with the provisions contained in the relevant recruitment rules i.e. ad hoc service/work-charged service/daily wages etc. may be reviewed. Such employees may be granted selection grades by counting the service rendered by them only after regular appointment in the cadre/service in accordance with the provisions contained in the relevant recruitment rules." 10. The ratio as laid down in Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi's case can be concluded to be that the selection grades would be granted by counting the services rendered by the employees only after regular appointment in the cadre/service in accordance with the provisions contained in the relevant recruitment rules. The ratio as laid down in Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi's case can be concluded to be that the selection grades would be granted by counting the services rendered by the employees only after regular appointment in the cadre/service in accordance with the provisions contained in the relevant recruitment rules. Meaning thereby the effective date to be counted for the purposes of grant of selection grade would be the date when the person has been regularly appointed/his services have been regularized in terms of the relevant recruitment rules. 11. As observed above, the relevant recruitment rules in the present matters would be the rules in terms of which the petitioners were appointed with the Irrigation Department as work charge employees. They were declared 'semi-permanent' with the Irrigation Department and the same effectually was regularization of their services with the Irrigation Department. Therefore considered from all aspects, may be in view of notification dated 25.01.1992 or in view of the ratio as laid down in the case of Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (supra), the only conclusion would be that in case of surplus employees who have been absorbed with some other department, the date of their regularization in services would be the effective date from which their services would be counted for the purpose of grant of selection grades. Meaning thereby, the grant of the selection grades to the present petitioners w.e.f. their date of absorption with Panchayati Raj Department cannot be held to be valid. 12. Before considering the relief to be granted to the petitioners, this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the first selection grade was granted to the petitioners in the year 1998/1999 and challenge to such grant has been sought to be made in the year 2018. This Court has granted indulgence in the present matter only because of the fact that the same is a recurring cause of action which ultimately is affecting the amount of pension being/to be granted to the petitioners. 13. In view of the above observations, the present petitions are allowed. The respondent Department is directed to count the services of the petitioners for the purposes of grant of selection grade w.e.f. the date the petitioners were declared 'semi-permanent' with the Irrigation Department. The revision of the selection grades consequently be made by the respondent Department within a period of two months from the date of the present order. The respondent Department is directed to count the services of the petitioners for the purposes of grant of selection grade w.e.f. the date the petitioners were declared 'semi-permanent' with the Irrigation Department. The revision of the selection grades consequently be made by the respondent Department within a period of two months from the date of the present order. However, it is made clear that the petitioners would not be entitled to any arrears/monetary benefits because of the said revision but they would be entitled to subsequent pensionary benefits only.